Seems like something will have to give on this route. Three carriers is quite a lot of lift and will put ORD-PEK close to the amount of capacity on SFO-PEK.

What does the traffic mix look like on this route? I would imagine that there is quite a bit of VFR (both Chicago O&D and connecting traffic from Texas, the Midwest, and the eastern states) as well as a decent amount of premium traffic. Are there any Chicago-based companies with large operations in Beijing, or vice versa?

Without a codeshare, I think HU would have a very tough time and would pick up almost entirely low-yield traffic.

According to the last round of US-China route cases, Chicago barely produces 200 daily passengers to all of China. This compares to over 500 from SF as example.

So clearly the bulk of traffic on AA and UA today are connections. The new Hainan flight will thus put pressure on chasing the few ORD based clients, while lets see if they code-share with AA for connections.

Hainan was 'supposed' to fly to Boston, using the long-awaited 787. This was 'announced' several years ago and obviously never happened (nor will it). I know Chicago is much more appealing to an airline than Boston, but best advice to the Windy City: Don't hold your breath on these guys.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 5):I'd more curious to know what this means with AA, if HU will codeshare on the Chicago route with AA (as it does with SEA-PEK), and what is the future prospects of AA's own ORD-PEK service then?

Perhaps AA will hand ORD-PEK to HU and codeshare on that flight while moving their ORD-PEK to the originally proposed DFW-PEK. AA might be able to renegotiate the pilot's contract while in Ch. 11 to allow it. DFW probably does not have much China O&D either but AA will get almost all of it and has a greater feed there.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 7):According to the last round of US-China route cases, Chicago barely produces 200 daily passengers to all of China. This compares to over 500 from SF as example.

Quoting ChrisNH (Reply 8):
Hainan was 'supposed' to fly to Boston, using the long-awaited 787. This was 'announced' several years ago and obviously never happened (nor will it). I know Chicago is much more appealing to an airline than Boston, but best advice to the Windy City: Don't hold your breath on these guys.

How is the Boston-China number like? Is the JAL NRT-BOS flight any indicator ... a 787 service between PEK and BOS would do quite well ... and HU probably should revisit its BOS plans. Otherwise I'm sure some other airline will think of this route soon ...

Quoting ChrisNH (Reply 8):Hainan was 'supposed' to fly to Boston, using the long-awaited 787. This was 'announced' several years ago and obviously never happened (nor will it). I know Chicago is much more appealing to an airline than Boston, but best advice to the Windy City: Don't hold your breath on these guys.

Agreed. However, it seems that the source on this one seems to be fairly reliable.

Quoting FSDan (Reply 6):Seems like something will have to give on this route. Three carriers is quite a lot of lift and will put ORD-PEK close to the amount of capacity on SFO-PEK.

It will indeed be interesting (assuming the HU route does materialize). Hainan will initially start with 4x weekly services (compared to AA and UA who fly ORDPEK daily) but HU certainly has the bandwidth to up-gauge capacity if the route merits it, just like they have done with SEA.

My guess is that AA will actually feel the most challenged, but it really does boil down to a toss-up scenario IF something can be done with the landing slots situation. Currently, AA is really at a disadvantage with the timings of ORDPEK, as it does indeed severely limit facilitating onward connections to/from PEK with such a late arrival time and early departure time.

However, if AA does indeed cozy up with HU, they can hopefully leverage that relationship to improve the slot times to get more PAX from a Chinese point-of-sale. HU and AA could then coordinate schedules to accommodate the traffic flows with greater equilibrium. I'm sure that at present, the majority of people who are taking this flight are originating or terminating their journeys at PEK.

Nevertheless, it really would be a shame if AA had to drop ORDPEK. I know they have not had a LF performance as high as UA's on the same route, and I'm sure it has everything to do with the timings. They do carry more cargo than UA which has helped somewhat, but I do think it is key for AA to hold onto this route for as long as possible.

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 9):Perhaps AA will hand ORD-PEK to HU and codeshare on that flight while moving their ORD-PEK to the originally proposed DFW-PEK. AA might be able to renegotiate the pilot's contract while in Ch. 11 to allow it. DFW probably does not have much China O&D either but AA will get almost all of it and has a greater feed there.

Why would they do that? Unless there is anti-trust immunity between AA and HU (which there is not) then they would be handing over all the revenue to HU. There is also no guarantee that the proposed DFWPEK route would receive ideal slot times either, and then all of the sudden you have the same problem with a different route.

I think this one is fairly far along and likely to happen. They have applied with the DOT, which they did not do for the Boston service, while the City of Chicago also submitted a support letter for Hainan. So clearly the parties have been in talks, and the ball is rolling on the ORD permits and leases also.

For the JAL service though its no surprise they have high LFs. The 787 has a low density 180'ish seat config (almost what southwest is putting on a 738) while Japan is by far the largest US transpacific markets. Be more interesting to see how it looks in deep winter when the tourism flow ebbs from both ends.

Yes will be interesting to see if AA opts to build its Hainan partnership to cover the HUORD flight also.

With loss of China Eastern into Skyteam, AA has been a bit hampered in China, so I'd think long term and strategically it needs to come up with a plan. However I've read that bringing HU closer to OW would be a mess since CX is a strong competitor (remember HU has a Hong Kong based division HX), and also Air China has a cross ownership in CX and would be unlikely want to see CX partner with HU.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 14):However I've read that bringing HU closer to OW would be a mess since CX is a strong competitor (remember HU has a Hong Kong based division HX), and also Air China has a cross ownership in CX and would be unlikely want to see CX partner with HU.

Good point. Although, bear in mind this wouldn't necessarily be the first example of 1+ regional airlines belonging to the same alliance despite being fierce competitors (TG and SQ in Star, MU, CZ and CI in Sky, etc).

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 9):DFW probably does not have much China O&D either but AA will get almost all of it and has a greater feed there.

Does it? Most of the feed will come from the NE and SE. Does DFW really have more feed than ORD for this type of flight? Both the NE and SE via DFW are more time elapsed than via ORD. The cities served via DFW and not via ORD tend to be smaller and/or in Latin America. Perhaps there is lots of Latin traffic to China. If so then moving it to DFW makes sense. But my guess is well over 50% of the traffic to PEK flows better over ORD than over DFW.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 17):But the difference is none are overlapping home base competitors.

CX(including Dragonair) and HX slog it out daily at HKG and combined would be just under 72% of the airports activity.

I doubt global regulators would be too happy about that either.

CX and HX aren't even remotely in the same sentence. That's comparing SQ to Jetstar Asia or TAM to Gol.

HX is a predominately short-haul O&D LCC with 1 single premium long haul destination - LGW. Even if the entire Hainan Group joins oneworld, I don't see any regulatory issues (HKG is neither slot nor gate constrained, so no divestures there).

Quoting IrishAyes (Reply 13):Why would they do that? Unless there is anti-trust immunity between AA and HU (which there is not) then they would be handing over all the revenue to HU. There is also no guarantee that the proposed DFWPEK route would receive ideal slot times either, and then all of the sudden you have the same problem with a different route.

That is assuming that AA is making money on ORD-PEK. It is quite possible that they are losing money on the route since they are going up against the more established UA. AA originally proposed DFW-PEK but had to switch to ORD-PEK because of a pilot's contract clause. AA initially got some really poor slot times at PEK but was granted better ones later. The can probably get reasonable ones for a DFW flight.

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 16):Does it? Most of the feed will come from the NE and SE. Does DFW really have more feed than ORD for this type of flight?

Other posts have indicated that total ORD O&D to PEK is around 200 daily seats. Demand for China from cities outside of the west coast is not that strong either so DFW may be better for AA as it does not have to compete with UA there and it is a much larger hub for AA overall. The flight time from the northeastern cities will be longer through DFW but on long haul flights like that the better facilities in Terminal D might balance out the hour of additional flight time. Total flight time connecting from the southeast through DFW would add an insignificant amount of time. As stated above, AA would have operated DFW-PEK as proposed initially to the DOT except for their inability to get a wavier from the pilots. Since the pilot's contract is likely to be renegotiated in Ch. 11, DFW-PEK will probably be possible since it was only slightly outside of the contract limit.

City of Chicago wants to make ORD a gateway to Asia, so expect more flights to come. I think HU flight will complement AA flight. HU has more connections via PEK while AA via ORD, so each carrier is appealing to a different segment of the market. Both PEK and PVG are very profitable to AA and UA and 4 flights a week from HU will not make a difference.I have flown with both UA and AA and each flight was full.

Quoting ChrisNH (Reply 8):Hainan was 'supposed' to fly to Boston, using the long-awaited 787. This was 'announced' several years ago and obviously never happened (nor will it). I know Chicago is much more appealing to an airline than Boston, but best advice to the Windy City: Don't hold your breath on these guys.

Déjà vu, same situation for their proposed Beijing to Honolulu service with the A346. HU announced their intent to start Hawaii flights in 2008, "worked" together with the Hawaii Tourism Authority, and even received DOT approval. Yet, after much optimism from the Hawaii authorities, the whole scheme quietly turned to nothing but hot air.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 14):I think this one is fairly far along and likely to happen. They have applied with the DOT, which they did not do for the Boston service, while the City of Chicago also submitted a support letter for Hainan. So clearly the parties have been in talks, and the ball is rolling on the ORD permits and leases also.

I'm not saying PEK-ORD isn't going to happen, but Hainan Airlines already has a history of making grand plans to start US service with nothing materializing. The "don't hold your breath on these guys" statement does hold some water. I'll believe it when I see it.

On a related note, China Eastern is now flying 2x weekly PVG-HNL with their new-config A332s (plus A346 subs). It appears that these flights are doing well.

Quoting yeogeo (Reply 4):Although alliance unaffiliated, Hainan does have a code-sharing agreement in place with American for pax in PEK & PVG. Perhaps it extends/will be extended to connecting feed at O'Hare.